I think that it was maybe me that wrote that post.

This is a very interesting topic.

Sometimes I wonder if modern life hasn't become so complicated that we can no longer see the irony--people spending billions aborting pregnancies, people spending billions artificially conceiving. Just pointing out the irony.

The biological inability to have a child isn't moral or immoral, it is a

biological inability to either produce sperm, conceive, or gestate a child. There is no judgment here; it just is. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to believe that alternative methods of conception would be immoral -- or moral either. The ridiculousness of this argument can be underscored by looking at it thusly: if a husband can produce sperm, but his wife cannot conceive, and it is immoral for them to choose an alternative, then it would stand to reason that it would be immoral for her to not allow the man to spread his seed elsewhere. It would also be immoral for the man not to go forth a multiply. But, then, you run into adultery... A conundrum? No, just another asinine belief that would drag us back into the Dark Ages based on superstitious nonsense...